Introduction In 2003, David Horowitz, a well-known conservative activist and president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center1 (formerly the Center for the Study of Popular Culture), authored and began to promote the Academic Bill of Rights (ABOR)2 to address what he perceived as liberal domination of U.S. higher education as manifested in a predominantly liberal faculty, liberal indoctrination of students, and a hostile climate for conservatives (Horowitz, 2003, 2005c). To address these concerns, Horowitz’s bill outlines policies that promote political and religious equality in faculty hiring and promotion, student evaluation, and curriculum development (Students for Academic Freedom [SAF], 2003a). Since Horowitz began to promote the ABOR through state and federal government, the bill has inspired numerous legislative discussions regarding higher education’s intellectual diversity. For example, in Pennsylvania, a legislative committee was formed to investigate academic freedom and the rights and responsibilities of students, as a result of Horowitz’s initiative (Jaschik, 2006a). In some cases these discussions have led to state and federal governments considering and/or adopting legislative or advisory documents based on the ABOR’s propositions, such as a Memorandum of Understanding developed by the Colorado legislature and 33 legislative bills proposed in states throughout the country, 15 of which had failed by October 2007 (Free Exchange on Campus, n.d.; National Education Association [NEA], n.d.). Horowitz’s promotion of a conservative agenda through the Academic Bill of Rights, and the government’s willingness to take on his cause raise important and urgent questions regarding the long-standing autonomy of higher education. Autonomy, defined as the ability of institutions to determine their own missions and the ways in which they achieve them (Berdahl & McConnell, 1994), has provided numerous benefits to higher education and its ability to serve society (Berdahl, 1990; Clark, 1983; Dressel, 1980; Trow, 1997). However, various constituents, including the public, state and federal government, and political interest groups, continue to impose their influence on post-secondary institutions (Bracco, Richardson, Callan, & Finney, 1999; Spring 2002). Of these groups, conservative interest groups, such as the Center for Popular Culture, have become increasingly prominent in the area of education (Apple, 2001) by influencing official governmental structures to impose educational agendas driven by political ideology (Spring, 2002). The Academic Bill of Rights is one example of this trend of conservative attempts to shape education generally and higher education specifically through legislative mechanisms. As a result, the ABOR is the specific focus of this case study that more broadly examines the influence of conservative ideology on the autonomy of higher education institutions. While others have expressed concerns about the ABOR’s effect on academic freedom (Ehisen, 2005; Reindl, 2004), this case study will argue that, as part of a larger conservative movement, it also has potential implications for institutional autonomy within higher education. First, in my literature review, I will discuss institutional autonomy and the relationship between state government and higher education. An exploration of the growing influence of conservatism on education will follow. In the findings section, I will then use a systematic analysis to examine the potential influence of the Academic Bill of Rights, a conservative initiative that proposes guidelines for political and religious equality in higher education with the larger goal of advocating for conservative thought. The findings will begin with an overview of the Academic Bill of Rights and the reasoning behind the bill. It will then look at the background of the bill’s supporters before examining the arguments of ABOR’s opponents. Lastly, it will examine the campaign promoting the ABOR at both the state and federal levels. This examination of the Academic Bill of Rights reveals that while the language of the document is consistent with some standards already established in higher education, state legislatures’ consideration and potential adoption of laws initiated by the ABOR could inappropriately diminish institutional autonomy in higher education. Background The Autonomy of Higher Education Scholars have long debated the role and importance of autonomy in higher education. On one hand, some scholars have argued that the autonomy of the U.S. higher education system has engendered numerous benefits (Boone, Peterson, Poje, & Scarlett, 1991; Geiger, 1999) while other scholars have noted that societal and governmental oversight ensures educational quality and lawful behavior (Gladieux & King, 1999). Those who have touted the benefits of autonomy have argued that its contribution to decentralization has enhanced organizational efficiency and flexibility (Boone et al., 1991). Additionally, this decentralization has allowed for institutional diversity which has fostered mass access by providing various entry points and areas of study (Trow, 1997) and enhanced research quality by providing opportunities for mobility that are based on research skills (Clark, 1983). Lastly, scholars have linked autonomy with higher education’s ability to fulfill its societal role. They have argued that institutions with substantial autonomy may be more able to ensure the academic freedom of their faculty (Berdahl, 1990), and that colleges and universities must have autonomy to fulfill their roles as objective evaluators and critics of society, as well as model problem-solvers and decision-makers (Dressel, 1980). Other literature, however, argues that governmental oversight may also play an important role in maintaining the quality of U.S. higher education through monitoring, preventing the abuse of public funds, and creating the legal framework that guides institutions (Gladieux & King, 1999; McGuiness, 2005). For example, the federal government enforces civil rights legislation, as well as other standards established by federal legislators (e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act) and governmental agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (Gladieux, King, & Corrigan, 2005). State government, which holds primary responsibility for education within the United States, has a major role in providing, allocating, and monitoring higher education funding (McGuiness, 2005). Moreover, scholars have noted a trend of increased accountability to state government, as the importance of advanced education and fiscal constraints have grown (Alexander, 2000; Gladieux & King, 1999; McGuiness, 2005; Schmidtlein & Berdahl, 2005; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004; Zumeta, 2000). While accountability has been primarily concerned with student outcomes (McGuiness, 2005), state legislatures’ interest in the Academic Bill of Rights can also be seen as another effort to hold higher education institutions accountable for their practices related to faculty personnel issues, student evaluation, and curriculum. The Conservative Movement While the Academic Bill of Rights can be seen as one mechanism through which state government could assert its influence on higher education, the ABOR can also be seen as driven by conservative interests. Scholars’ conceptualization and critiques of conservatism (Lakoff, 2002; Spring, 2002) provide the lens through which the Academic Bill of Rights is examined as one example of what Michael W. Apple (2000) terms the “conservative restoration” (p. 39), referring to the success that conservatives have had in influencing social—particularly educational—policy. This emerging social movement consists of, and draws its success from a broad-based alliance that includes neoliberals, neoconservatives, authoritarian populists, a portion of the new middle class, the religious right, conservative think tanks, and the Republican party (Apple, 2000; Spring 2002). While these groups possess varying ideologies, they have been able to form an effective alliance around such common goals as preserving traditional Western thought and values, promoting Judeo-Christian morals and maintaining traditional family values (Apple, 2000; Bennett, 1992; Lakoff, 2002). Apple (2000) has attributed their success to their ability to “win the battle over common sense. That is, [the conservative movement] has creatively stitched together different social tendencies and commitments” (p. 59) to develop initiatives that address numerous social issues, including education. George Lakoff (2002, 2004) argues that these social values include a belief in authoritarian leaders, strict moral rules, and meritocracy. Reflected in such conservative educational policies as No Child Left Behind, these values manifest themselves in a belief that “standards [be] based on the classics of Western culture that are tried and true and have withstood the test of time. [A belief in making]…. students work hard. [And a belief in using] a system of rewards and punishments… [which] grade[s] seriously and rigorously and fail[s] people who deserve to fail” (Lakoff, 2002, p. 234). While the conservative movement possesses some common values, an examination of the goals and ideologies of individual constituencies also provides insight into conservative educational priorities. Neoconservatism emphasizes a strong state that promotes a “‘return’ to higher standards, a revivification of the ‘Western tradition,’ and patriotism” (Apple, 2000, p. 67). As a result the neoconservative